ArticlePloS one2025
Facilitators and barriers to building research capacity among clinical nurses: A systematic review protocol.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitators and barriers to innovation and research capacity among clinical nurses: A qualitative systematic review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Tracing the Roots of Inquiry: A Historical Review of Nursing Research Through Professionalisation Theory.Nursing inquiry · 2026Review
- Understanding the clinical nurses' perceptions and coping strategies of nursing research: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Research Competencies of Registered Pediatric Nurses: Evidence from a Greek Pediatric Hospital.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical nurses' research capacity is essential for building a research-active nursing workforce and advancing evidence-based practice. Despite increasing global attention, few systematic reviews have examined the current state of nurses' research capacity or the factors influencing its development.
objectiveThis protocol outlines a systematic review designed to evaluate clinical nurses' research capacity and to identify the key barriers and facilitators to its improvement across diverse healthcare contexts.
methodsThe review will follow PRISMA guidelines. Eight databases-PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, CNKI, and Wanfang-will be searched for relevant quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods studies. Study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal will be performed independently by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Findings will be integrated through thematic synthesis based on Braun and Clarke's six-phase framework. Quantitative results will be transformed into narrative form and synthesized with qualitative data. Given the anticipated heterogeneity, a meta-analysis will not be conducted.
conclusionThe findings are expected to provide insights into clinical nurses' research capacity and its influencing factors to inform targeted strategies to support research engagement and integration into clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.